These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#181 - 2014-01-19 16:17:09 UTC
I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.

What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun.
Kaminokage
Perkone
Caldari State
#182 - 2014-01-19 16:17:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kaminokage wrote:
[quote=Malcanis]The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like t
Best regards,
kaminokage


Dear kaminokage,

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a part of CCP. I'm not. You're not my customer. I don't take your money.

I agree that HED- was an unacceptable experience for paying customers, and I'm proposing a solution. Just yelling FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT at CCP won't fix anything. If they could push a button to fix lag, they would have done so.

If we don't like the way things work, we have to propose changes.


Ops, my bad...but I hope CCP got the point :D
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#183 - 2014-01-19 16:17:58 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nice to see you guys are finally realizing that power projection is a problem. Blink


Hey I predicted this exact outcome 3 years ago, before the non-DOT NC was destroyed.

Not that it was exactly difficult

Malcanis said in 2011 wrote:

Powerblocs are an inevitable ermergent effect for the same reasons in EVE as in RL. If you want smaller powerblocs (and that's all that's being asked for really), you need more fragmented space. (The fragmentation effect is also what's behind the current furore about jump bridges, but removing JBs wont stop powerblocs, not really. They'll just impose additional overhead to deploying those 4-figure fleets, but they wont stop them being used when it really counts)


https://www.koogootsumen.com/showthread.php?37310-Die-Another-Day-NC-hegemony-a-problem

(Don't replace the oo's with u's and follow that link, your PC will instantly be hacked by hacking hackers)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Chirjo Durruti
Doomheim
#184 - 2014-01-19 16:20:16 UTC
Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:

- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable.
- hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request.
- hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt.

HOWTO: No More Tears (solo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdA4ciUrH-k If you can get me a better crew than THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrtQ9AdoM0 convo me.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#185 - 2014-01-19 16:20:48 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.

First off, it's important to understand that's there's no magic "shut up and take my money" hardware bullet. Even if CCP went out and bought literally the best hardware on the planet, they'd get at most about a one-time 15-20% improvement. Real scope for improvement lies in the software. And developing a software fix is proving pretty damb difficult. Work is being done, but there aren't any big wins on the immediate horizon.

The other possibilty is game design. Either disincentivize or make too expenive (meaning as in time & effort because as we all know expensive as in ISK doesn't mean ****) ultrablob tactics.

My esteemed fellow poster Mr Grath Telkin has proposed a space-honoure~~ agreement between alliance FCs not to bring more than a few hundred ships to a fight. In effect, to turn EVE warfare into a tournament. Whilst his proposal is as laughably unrealistic as it is blatantly self serving, it does highlight a basic truth that there is no denying: EVE simply can't support all-out alliance warfare on the current model.

The only possible effective solution is to effectively enforce that space-honoure agreement and radically reduce power projection so that if eg: the CFC are deploying a fleet in Catch, the same fleet is physically unable to defend a timer in Branch. Thus any far-flung power bloc which attempts to project power on this side of the map must necessarily reduce it's ability to do so on that side. That is the only way that bloc level powers will voluntarily limit the size of the fleets that they deploy: by making it in their own interest.

To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on.

Are you, the inhabitants of 0.0 ready to accept such a radical change in your 0.0 lifestyle? Most of 0.0 lives in blocs, and this would be a titanic nerf to blocs.

If not, then fine, but don't complain about what happens when 4000 people have a capital battle in a single system.

If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


Couple this with an increase in null sec industrial capabilities, which would take the bite out of such a paradigm shift, and I'd say full speed ahead.


That's pretty much what I had in mind. The object isn't to make living in sov 0.0 even worse than it is now, but to force a focus on smaller scale, local actions, rather than ONE BIG FIGHT that CCP are simply unable to support.

If and when CCP develop the software to facilitate larger battles, the retrictions can be proportionately relaxed.

But by then I think it's possible that we might not want them to be.


How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.


The buff to null industry would not be to get more supers available; it's just to make logistics in null possible without jump bridges i.e. Production chains can exist entirely in null, meaning way less trips to high sec. If you nerf jumping ( not a bad idea) to prevent power projection on the scale we're seeing, you also heavily nerf day-to-day logistics, and need to compensate.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2014-01-19 16:21:06 UTC
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Beautiful Frelcia wrote:
CCP to keep you motivated I have un-subbed my 2 accounts and will comeback ONLY when OP issues are resolved.

2 less goons in the game?

PERFECT


you dont get It. Its not about politics', meta gaming etc. Its about service we are paying for every month.



goons paying for their subs?


Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2014-01-19 16:21:46 UTC
Bland Inquisitor wrote:
We are not talking about a new problem here, we are talking about THE problem. One that could of easily been fixed if CCP would invest its energies towards a solution instead of wasting time on other ventures such as Dust and World of Darkness.

I see two options open to CCP that would be acceptable to the player base;

1. A complete re-make write of the game, they have most of the time consuming factors taken care of so its not like they would be going back to the drawing board. They have the content, textures, models, infrastructure and manpower to be able to do so, why create an entirely new game such as Dust or WOD when your flagship title (the one that provides you all your income) is in dire need of an overhaul?

2. An entire game mechanic overhaul to change the overall objectives within 0.0.

The simplest way to do so would be to implement a hard restriction on stressing the server out. I would use a % base damage tick on all hulls in space based on the level of TIDI in system. It stands to reason that if the amount of ships in space can slow down time they can also cause an electrical storm that causes damage. So at 50% tidi you start doing 10% Total EHP per minute in system which isn't effected by resistances. If you get to the stage where its 1% TIDI your going to be doing 90% total EHP. In essence your going to destroy everything in that system within 2 minutes.

A soft restriction would be implemented by rewards similar to incursions. Think of it like if there are more than 100 ships firing missiles at an IHUB the missiles start to collide and you actually start to lose overall DPS.

Finally I would like to see each player slot in a corporation mean something, Make it so that corporations have to be selective of their pilots. Scale that up also so alliances have to be selective of their member corps. Its always baffled me that there is no limitations on scale within eve, things like running costs, food and water, transport and other limiting factors of real conflicts are not present in this game which inevitably leads to the N+1 issue.

End of the day if EvE conflicts are won by N+1 and the only limiting factor is amount of players a node can sustain you will ALWAYS have this problem


sicen when whatyou describe can be considered EASILY solved?

Pff the ammount of fail comments by peoepl that never developed a software on this scale and had to deal with market pressure is amazing.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2014-01-19 16:23:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Chirjo Durruti wrote:
Maybe a stupid idea, but how about this:

- hardcap pilots in system to a level where TiDi is still sufferable.
- hardcap pilots that are not "officially blue" to corp holding sovereignty to 50% of total pilot cap (stargates belong to sov holder, right? wouldn't you facecheck incoming pilots?). "officially blue" status change is delayed 24h after change request.
- hardcap on non-blue pilots can be removed by onlining facecheck hacking units on sending stargates. sov holder of receiving stargate system will be notified about hacking attempt.

You'd be suprised at the levels of disgraceful conduct people will go to to win :) like neut alts and alt neut fleets to limit entry of legitimate non-blues... edit

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone
Caldari State
#189 - 2014-01-19 16:26:18 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts".

Is this actually within the realm of reason? Or just grumpy over-reaction (no offense, please). If it's true, then wow, they need to perma-ban this dude. I bet the sub losses would be insignificant in the long run. This is the only game of it's type out there. People won't just walk away.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#190 - 2014-01-19 16:29:23 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

But yeah, I really wonder if mittens has not threatened CCP with, "you mess with our operations, I will get 10,000 null sec accounts to unsub, and not before we grief high sec so bad you lose another 20,000 high sec accounts".

Is this actually within the realm of reason? Or just grumpy over-reaction (no offense, please). If it's true, then wow, they need to perma-ban this dude. I bet the sub losses would be insignificant in the long run. This is the only game of it's type out there. People won't just walk away.

conspiracy theories... you don't threaten vikings and live

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#191 - 2014-01-19 16:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
Kagura Nikon;

Not going to argue against "fail comments" vs complexity and cost in development Smile

But Malcanis is asking for suggestions and brainstorming with regards to solutions on how to make EVE a better gaming expirience.
Hopefully a few of the ideas can atleast inspire CCP DEVs and spark a tweak in mechanics to improve on the current situation.

Non game related; when you are in a meeting developing bussniss procedures, you might look at collegues work and find it quite useless as it is. BUT their inital work might give you ideas on your own, and the procedure is futher developed.

Brainstorming CAN be helpful P
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#192 - 2014-01-19 16:39:46 UTC
Oh something else to consider. Yesterday before my computer crashed CFC dreads were dying before they were even loading into system afaik. At least they were just sitting there doing nothing and I read that in local.

After my computer crashed and I rebooted I logged into HED again, got a black screen for 10 minutes. Closed the client and loaded an alt. About 10 minutes after that my alts connection was usurped by Infinity lol. So she finally loaded into system when I was already logged onto another character on my account.

That sort of thing could be looked into too and make people a bit less angry.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#193 - 2014-01-19 16:44:01 UTC
All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous.
Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure.
CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund.
If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list.
If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way.
In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver.
Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field.
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2014-01-19 16:48:14 UTC
I'm at a bit of a loss what caused this fight? Was it planned? (not trolling, really don't know)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#195 - 2014-01-19 16:48:30 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.


It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother.

The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers (again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.


"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#196 - 2014-01-19 16:49:33 UTC
Stasis Leak wrote:
All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous.
Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure.
CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund.
If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list.
If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way.
In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver.
Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field.

CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Niding
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#197 - 2014-01-19 16:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Niding
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

How does an increase in null sec industrial capabilities force local fights?
I completely agree that many many localized fights are what a war is supposed to be about.

But if you buff null sec industry, that will just mean that players will jump clone to their dread/carrier fleets scattered all over the areas they live in. Everyone will have a cap clone that can jump at a moment's notice to a hangar with a dread/carrier in it, then 19 hours later, jump to the next mega-battle. Everyone will own a huge stable of caps, each fitted for whatever doctrine is required, placed at strategic locations across the cosmos, and nothing changes. The size of the battles won't change, only the ship composition.


It's a legit question. The answer is that at the moment, sov 0.0 is utterly dependent on logistics routes supplying ships, modules, faction ammo, T2 stuff, T3s, skillbooks, blueprints, etcetera et ad nauseam from hi-sec. Living in sov 0.0 is already bad enough without making the quality of life so bad that people just won't bother.

The point isn't to punish the filthy nullseccers (again) but to encourage and enable people who want to live in nullsec.




Well, the gains of activity is in the indexes. As I said earlier, maybe tie the indexes into the moon value for added incentive to actually live and utilize 0.0.

As for it being a pain to live in 0.0 as it is;

high sec traders have small margins, but very high volume.
0.0 traders have bigger margins, but lower volume.

If the system in 0.0 is tweaked so there is more incentive to actually live there, the traders will follow. They do the hauling and seeding of whats needed. More "stuff" on the market will attract more people to that part of the region. Generating more income/volume etc.

The drawback in the current status of 0.0 is that any system in EVE can be flipped in barely a week, and there is nothing you can do to stop this unless you are part of one of the blocs.
This makes traders somewhat uneasy cause predictability and a certain level of stability is required for a growing economy.
As it is, there is absolutly no predictability in 0.0 when it comes to building Trade hubs (with the exception of NPC stations in 0.0).
Miasmos
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2014-01-19 16:56:28 UTC
One should take into consideration the psychological effect of nerfing capital jumps. "Capitals are best used at a small perimeter" -> "Capitals are best used for defense".

Every bloc would stockpile their defensive capitals forever in their home turf, never putting any of them on campaigns except for when a minor entity doesn't pay the rent. 2015 would be the year of ratting supers. I don't know whether this would actually change anything or not, I guess that's the reality anyway. Possibly rental empire spans would be reduced, allowing for more coalitions lebensraum in the best case scenario.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#199 - 2014-01-19 16:57:40 UTC

@Malcanis: If you can j-clone, you can fight a two front battle. You just need ships in both locations. While this won't work for supercaps, it will work for capitals and subcaps.

Next, the real solution is going to be much different than you expect. Putting caps on the number of pilots in system (as others have suspected) keeps the server alive ticking, but is very gameable. At the end of the day though, this hits the real "solution". The real solution is to reduce the number of pilots in a system to a manageable amount. But the question is, how do you accomplish this in a reasonable manner?

You do it through attrition. In all honesty, what is the rate at which pilots "leave" a system once they enter it? Frankly, it isn't high enough, and that's what needs to change!

Now, there are several dilemmas at work here:

1.) Logistics: Logistics are amazing in many regards, but they essentially reduce and/or eliminate the attrition of ships in a fight. You need attrition to reduce (ideally quickly) the number of ships & pilots on field.

2.) Grid loading: One of the biggest problems in attacking a force already on field, is your ships need to load field before they can even react to the environment they find themselves in. There needs to be extended invulnerability for ships loading grid.

3.) Massive Player Influx: This may happen by gate or by bridging, but sov is one of the few areas where a thousand players may suddenly arrive in system. There probably needs to be a limit as to how many players can enter system at once, especially since this is one of the more demanding loads on the server (to my limited understanding).
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2014-01-19 16:59:32 UTC
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.

What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun.



and how in hell doe shta thelp? They simply divide the SAME coalition in more alliances.

The means to make it happen is to make large groups inneficient. Only way that happens is if therte are mechanics toa create internal distrust,

MEchanic s that make you having many members just open you up to too many traitors possibilities.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"